JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The Revenue has preferred this Income-tax appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenging the order dated January 22, 2010, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jaipur Bench "B", Jaipur, affirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Jaipur. 3. The Assessing Officer, while going through the accounts of the assessee, noticed that a sum of Rs. 16,00,900 is credited in the capital account. Explanation was sought in this regard and reply of the assessee was that it was an advance payment remitted by M/s. India Gems and Beads, USA, for supply of goods, but due to inadvertence the said amount was credited to the accounts of the assessee in the balance-sheet. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied and he added the said amount of Rs. 16,00,900 in the income of the assessee and directed to initiate penalty proceedings also. The assessee preferred an appeal. The appellate authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Jaipur, vide his order dated April 28, 2009, was satisfied with the explanation/reply furnished by assessee and deleted the said addition of Rs. 16,00,900. The matter was discussed in detail by the appellate authority in paragraph 1.3 of the order, which is reproduced as under : "I have considered facts of the case and arguments taken by Sh. Mundra quite carefully. It is a clear fact that the appellant was making regular exports to M/s. India Gems and Beads since last many years who was remitting lump sum payment in advance against such export sales and such advance payment received were adjusted against such export sales from time to time. In this process on a perusal of a copy of account for the financial year 2002-03 of the aforesaid party was examined it was found that during the year the appellant has received 403215 US$ equivalent to Rs. 1,94,96,560 as against which the export sales shown to the said party was 3,80,916 US$ equivalent to Rs. 1,84,05,397 and it was also included the export sales of 35000 US$ in respect of invoice No. 12, dated August 26, 2002. Similarly, in the financial year 2003-04, the appellant has received 394779.72 US$ from the said party against which the export sales to the said party was of 352134.42 US$. 1,84,05,397 and it was also included the export sales of 35000 US$ in respect of invoice No. 12, dated August 26, 2002. Similarly, in the financial year 2003-04, the appellant has received 394779.72 US$ from the said party against which the export sales to the said party was of 352134.42 US$. However, the banker could not connect the advance amount received against the export sale through invoice No. 12 for 35000 US$ and informed the appellant the implication of the FEMA provisions. In order to avoid proceedings in the FEMA the appellant has again requested the said party to send 35000 US$ pending reconciliation at the level of bank to close the FEMA proceedings and obviously in the account books it shall be an advance payment. The nature of any payment received cannot be decided with the accounting treatment given and, there fore, in my considered view, even if due to mistake or misunderstanding if the accountant has credited the said money into the capital account of the appellant it cannot become the part of capital and then obviously it shall be in the nature of advance payment which certainly cannot be part of revenue receipts because looking to the nature of business the revenue receipt shall be the export proceeds only and not the advance amount received. Even in the past when the advance amount received was more or less but they did not assume the character of revenue receipt and in fact actual export proceeds were only the revenue receipts irrespective of the advance amount received against the export sale. With this discussion and considering the accounting of the appellant for the present assessment year and for earlier assessment year factually the said receipt of 35000 US$ is only the advance amount which cannot be treated as part of revenue receipts and with this discussion the said addition made by the Assessing Officer, in my considered view, was not in accordance with the accounting principles and, therefore, was not chargeable to tax. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to delete the said addition of Rs. 16,00,900." 4. The aforesaid finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was affirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal while rejecting the appeal of Revenue, vide judgment dated January 22, 2010, which is impugned in this appeal. 5. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to delete the said addition of Rs. 16,00,900." 4. The aforesaid finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was affirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal while rejecting the appeal of Revenue, vide judgment dated January 22, 2010, which is impugned in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal both committed an illegality in deleting the addition of Rs. 16,00,900, therefore, both the orders be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as appellate authority and we find that the appellate authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal both have examined the matter in detail and by speaking order, directed to delete the said addition of Rs. 16,00,900. The finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has been affirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also. 7. The question in the present case is only with regard to the explanation furnished by the assessee in respect of the disputed amount as to whether it is an income of the assessee or it was only an advance ? The accounts of the previous years were taken into consideration along with the explanation of the assessee and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was fully satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and his finding has been affirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also. 8. The aforesaid question is only a question of fact and there is concurrent finding of fact by both the authorities below, which cannot be interfered with. The appeal can be admitted only on substantial question of law. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence, it is dismissed summarily. *******